Spectral Waltz
Scatterbrained Writer
- Location
- Walking the Endless Corridors
Regardless of conscious action, it is an inherently evil mindset.
Evil requires conscious action, you cannot be 'accidentally evil'. The very notion is ridiculous.
Regardless of conscious action, it is an inherently evil mindset.
This entire thread of discussion sounds like "why can't I say the [insert] word?" except with a hint of vanilla extract for """flavour""". If you're trying to get at something then just spit it out, if not then it'd be nice if you stopped wasting everyone's time.But according to some of the posters here we should ban anyone who has bigoted impulses/assumptions regardless of if they do anything against the rules.
I don't think this is true. There are most definitely "sins of omission" as it were. Choosing to be ignorant, refusing to question your own biases, and standing idle while harm is done to others are all aspects of bigotry and can all be unconscious choices. Turns out being a decent human being takes a minimum of effort.Evil requires conscious action, you cannot be 'accidentally evil'. The very notion is ridiculous.
That is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard about evil.Evil requires conscious action, you cannot be 'accidentally evil'. The very notion is ridiculous.
There's a thin line between well intentioned extremist and an evil or delusional person who is trying to rationalize or justify their beliefs.That said, a well-intentioned extremist may not be evil, but they can do more harm than many who are evil. This is generally the type of behavior that gets nailed here the most.
So? The point is several posters have argued in favor of kicking off groups they don't like for how they feel/think regardless of if they did anything against the rules.
This. Very much this.Evil requires conscious action, you cannot be 'accidentally evil'. The very notion is ridiculous.
posting bigoted thoughts is the only way that mods can know you have bigoted thoughts and posting bigoted thoughts is against the rules how are you not getting thisSo? The point is several posters have argued in favor of kicking off groups they don't like for how they feel/think regardless of if they did anything against the rules.
I'm not really worried about the mods deciding to follow that, but I am going to argue that this sort of idea is idiotic.
1)Posting bigoted/prejudiced thoughts is not against the rules. The example given was a person admitting that X group makes him uncomfortable and trying to deal with that. Other examples are people declaring all zionists or all trump supporters inherently evil.posting bigoted thoughts is the only way that mods can know you have bigoted thoughts and posting bigoted thoughts is against the rules how are you not getting this
Alright, I'm going to try and break this down a little bit.1)Posting bigoted/prejudiced thoughts is not against the rules. The example given was a person admitting that X group makes him uncomfortable and trying to deal with that. Other examples are people declaring all zionists or all trump supporters inherently evil.
2)The argument started with people posting that people who think certain things should be banned even if they didn't do anything against the rules.
Hey 8 months later I am here now
For ChaoticAwesome? They did something pretty stupid in saying a word they knew was a source of contention, then they made a even larger mistake liking a post referencing a Far Right dictator famous for killing leftists (as well as more fucked up shit I won't say here) on a closely linked site while having the same name. Utter mongrelity and not surprising what happened
As for the discussion following it? uh, eh? I hardly think this ruling would allow a wave of transphobic people to pour onto the site and I kinda wish people didn't jump to conclusion it did since it honestly will remembered as a "oh yea that ruling, I forgot about it lol" and it comes across as, well, hyperbolic
I'm out of the loop on the situation with Lord Squishy, can someone explain to me what happened?
Hope you get through this "trap" thing as well as on SB. The SV moderation has shown itself to be incredibly bigoted when that term is concerned.
When it has come up before it usually ended with the author being labled as either hateful or ignorant.
1) A fear that ruling that this is OK would open a loophole where people can harrass transgender people and other targets by veiling their harrasment as criticism of the rules.
The term is itself intrinsically bigoted and insulting. It doesn't need to be packed into an over the top insult to be a problem.This is an interesting problem. Fear is OK and reasonable. So, what do we do? Do we:
A) Blanket censor all use of the term "trap", because it could potentially be malicious offensive use?
But does actual honest criticism of the rules that happens to involve traps then deserve to be veto'd in order to enforce this, as collateral damage? That aside, I also feel like this would be despotic because now, a portion of the rules cannot be criticized. That's a serious problem.
B) Cautiously analyze the context in the which it is used in order to determine the nature of its use?
I think this is a lot more reasonable. It would be great if it was like this. But the thing is, this already is site policy, just look at all of the care we have in how our infractions are treated. We already have the report system. We have the appeals. We have so much care and caution already in picking things apart when they're contested that I think that transgender harassment based on the use of the word trap can be dealt with anyways.
There is no "slippery slope", because we have so much bureaucracy involving analysis to prevent being swept by it. What's the point of having it at all, otherwise, if we're just going to be blind slaves of assumptions and lack of research?
Harassment will be detected. Isn't that why we're putting so much effort to have a good judicial system? So, knowing that, what is the problem then? We already have the solution in place. I feel like people are jumping the gun and just excessively concerned for the fear described in 1).
That said, I also agree with Squishette's judgement of it. It wasn't malicious use of the term "trap", like "traps are retarded" or "traps aren't as good as real women". It was just discussion concerning how its involved in rules.
Trap can absolutely be used in a non-bigoted manner.This is an interesting problem. Fear is OK and reasonable. So, what do we do? Do we:
A) Blanket censor all use of the term "trap", because it could potentially be malicious offensive use?
But does actual honest criticism of the rules that happens to involve traps then deserve to be veto'd in order to enforce this, as collateral damage? That aside, I also feel like this would be despotic because now, a portion of the rules cannot be criticized. That's a serious problem.
B) Cautiously analyze the context in the which it is used in order to determine the nature of its use?
I think this is a lot more reasonable. It would be great if it was like this. But the thing is, this already is site policy, just look at all of the care we have in how our infractions are treated. We already have the report system. We have the appeals. We have so much care and caution already in picking things apart when they're contested that I think that transgender harassment based on the use of the word trap can be dealt with anyways.
There is no "slippery slope", because we have so much bureaucracy involving analysis to prevent being swept by it. What's the point of having it at all, otherwise, if we're just going to be blind slaves of assumptions and lack of research?
Harassment will be detected. Isn't that why we're putting so much effort to have a good judicial system? So, knowing that, what is the problem then? We already have the solution in place. I feel like people are jumping the gun and just excessively concerned for the fear described in 1).
That said, I also agree with Squishette's judgement of it. It wasn't malicious use of the term "trap", like "traps are retarded" or "traps aren't as good as real women". It was just discussion concerning how its involved in rules.
I think that is pretty obvious. There are plenty of words like that in English.Only when used in reference to transpeople. When referring to an ambush or baiting someone into doing something, then I see nothing bigoted or insulting about it.
Well yes, but I think context should clearly tell you that they were not referring to describing objects as traps.Only when used in reference to transpeople. When referring to an ambush or baiting someone into doing something, then I see nothing bigoted or insulting about it.
While it can be used as anti-trans slur, the term trap does have a proper meaning to it which is allowable on the forum.
I think that is pretty obvious. There are plenty of words like that in English.
Well yes, but I think context should clearly tell you that they were not referring to describing objects as traps.
(context and that Mesonoxian isn't an idiot)